Entity Frameworkhttp://entityframework.codeplex.com/project/feeds/rssEntity Framework is an object-relational mapper that enables .NET developers to work with relational data using domain-specific objects.Closed Feature: Polymorphic LINQ queries should support casting for entities that use EF inheritance [628]http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/628Right now, the following type of query is allowed&#58;<br /><br />IQueryable&#60;BaseEntity&#62; q &#61; ...&#59;<br />var results &#61; q.Select&#40;be &#61;&#62; be is DerivedEntity1 &#63; 1 &#58; 2&#41;.ToList&#40;&#41;&#59;<br /><br />But the following does not compile to SQL&#58;<br /><br />var results &#61; q.Select&#40;be &#61;&#62; be is DerivedEntity1 &#63; &#40;be as DerivedEntity1&#41;.DerivedProperty &#58; 2&#41;.ToList&#40;&#41;&#59;<br /><br />I think &#34;as&#34; casting makes more sense to support than traditional casting, because it seems that &#34;as&#34; casting could easily be simulated via a LEFT JOIN while there&#39;s no way to get traditional cast semantics for complex objects in SQL.<br /><br />This request relates to my question on StackOverflow &#40;http&#58;&#47;&#47;stackoverflow.com&#47;questions&#47;12165805&#47;casting-to-a-derived-type-in-a-linq-to-entities-query-with-table-per-hierarchy-i&#41;.<br /><br />Note&#58; I have encountered this problem at work where we use EF 4.3.1. I apologize if this feature has already been added in EF5&#43;.<br />Comments: &#42;&#42;EF Team Triage&#58;&#42;&#42; We are transitioning this project to GitHub &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#41;. As part of this transition we are bulk closing a large number of issues in order that our new issue tracker will accurately reflect the work that our team is planning to complete on the EF6.x code base.&#10;&#10;Moving forwards, our team will be fixing bugs, implementing small improvements, and accepting community contributions to the EF6.x code base. Larger feature work and innovation will happen in the EF Core code base &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework&#41;. &#42;&#42;Closing a feature request in the EF6.x project does not exclude us implementing the feature in EF Core. In fact, a number of popular feature requests for EF have already been implemented in EF Core &#40;alternate keys, batching in SaveChanges, etc.&#41;.&#42;&#42;&#10;&#10;This is a bulk message to indicate that this issue was closed and not ported to the new issue tracker. The reasons for not porting this particular issue to GitHub may include&#58;&#10; &#42; It was a bug report that does not contain sufficient information for us to be able to reproduce it &#10; &#42; It was a question, but sufficient time has passed that it&#39;s not clear that taking the time to answer it would provide value to the person who asked it &#10; &#42; It is a feature request that we are realistically not going to implement on the EF6.x code base&#10;Although this issue was not ported, you may still re-open it in the new issue tracker for our team to reconsider &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#47;issues&#41;. &#42;&#42;We will no longer be monitoring this issue tracker for comments, so please do not reply here.&#42;&#42;RoMillerThu, 08 Dec 2016 22:49:00 GMTClosed Feature: Polymorphic LINQ queries should support casting for entities that use EF inheritance [628] 20161208104900PClosed Unassigned: It is not possible to load an entity with a complex inheritance structure using the TPT Inheritance feature [2578]http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/2578I would like to report a scenario where it is not possible to load an entity with a complex inheritance structure. I took the example from&#58; http&#58;&#47;&#47;msdn.microsoft.com&#47;en-us&#47;data&#47;jj618293.aspx. You can find the ConsoleApp in the attachment.<br /><br />I dived into the code and saw that the TPT Inheritance features assumes that the base inheritance type should always be the base type specified in the edmx file. For me it makes no sense because the only thing you have to check is that there is the correct base type existing in the hole inheritance structure at all.<br /><br />To make it not so restrict you have to change the file OSpaceTypeFactory.cs &#40;in namespace System. Data. Entity. Core. Metadata. Edm&#41;&#58;<br />Line 107 in method TryCreateStructuralType&#40;...&#41; and line 227 in method TryCreateMembers&#40;...&#41;<br /><br />The error message is&#58; Object mapping could not be found for Type with identity &#39;...&#39;<br />Comments: &#42;&#42;EF Team Triage&#58;&#42;&#42; We are transitioning this project to GitHub &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#41;. As part of this transition we are bulk closing a large number of issues in order that our new issue tracker will accurately reflect the work that our team is planning to complete on the EF6.x code base.&#10;&#10;Moving forwards, our team will be fixing bugs, implementing small improvements, and accepting community contributions to the EF6.x code base. Larger feature work and innovation will happen in the EF Core code base &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework&#41;. &#42;&#42;Closing a feature request in the EF6.x project does not exclude us implementing the feature in EF Core. In fact, a number of popular feature requests for EF have already been implemented in EF Core &#40;alternate keys, batching in SaveChanges, etc.&#41;.&#42;&#42;&#10;&#10;This is a bulk message to indicate that this issue was closed and not ported to the new issue tracker. The reasons for not porting this particular issue to GitHub may include&#58;&#10; &#42; It was a bug report that does not contain sufficient information for us to be able to reproduce it &#10; &#42; It was a question, but sufficient time has passed that it&#39;s not clear that taking the time to answer it would provide value to the person who asked it &#10; &#42; It is a feature request that we are realistically not going to implement on the EF6.x code base&#10;Although this issue was not ported, you may still re-open it in the new issue tracker for our team to reconsider &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#47;issues&#41;. &#42;&#42;We will no longer be monitoring this issue tracker for comments, so please do not reply here.&#42;&#42;RoMillerThu, 08 Dec 2016 22:48:56 GMTClosed Unassigned: It is not possible to load an entity with a complex inheritance structure using the TPT Inheritance feature [2578] 20161208104856PClosed Issue: Migrations :: migrating from regular table to inheritance (TPH with abstract base or TPT) fails [1971]http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/1971Consider the following model&#58;<br /><br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br /> public class Animal<br /> &#123;<br /> &#91;Key&#93;<br /> public string Name &#123; get&#59; set&#59; &#125;<br /> &#125;<br /><br /> public class MyContext &#58; DbContext<br /> &#123;<br /> public DbSet&#60;Animal&#62; Animals &#123; get&#59; set&#59; &#125;<br /> &#125;<br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br /><br />Enable-Migrations<br />Add-Migration Mig1<br />Update-Database<br /><br />now change it to the following, essentially adding a TPH inheritance with abstract base&#58;<br /><br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br /> public abstract class Animal<br /> &#123;<br /> &#91;Key&#93;<br /> public string Name &#123; get&#59; set&#59; &#125;<br /> &#125;<br /><br /> public class Doge &#58; Animal<br /> &#123;<br /> public bool Wow &#123; get&#59; set&#59; &#125;<br /> &#125;<br /><br /> public class MyContext &#58; DbContext<br /> &#123;<br /> public DbSet&#60;Animal&#62; Animals &#123; get&#59; set&#59; &#125;<br /> &#125;<br /><br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br /><br />This produces incorrect migration&#58;<br /><br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br /> public override void Up&#40;&#41;<br /> &#123;<br /> CreateTable&#40;<br /> &#34;dbo.Animals&#34;,<br /> c &#61;&#62; new<br /> &#123;<br /> Name &#61; c.String&#40;nullable&#58; false, maxLength&#58; 128&#41;,<br /> Wow &#61; c.Boolean&#40;&#41;,<br /> Discriminator &#61; c.String&#40;nullable&#58; false, maxLength&#58; 128&#41;,<br /> &#125;&#41;<br /> .PrimaryKey&#40;t &#61;&#62; t.Name&#41;&#59;<br /> <br /> DropTable&#40;&#34;dbo.Animals&#34;&#41;&#59;<br /> &#125;<br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br /><br />Note that everything works fine if the base type is not made abstract. Making it medium priority, since this seems like a common migration pattern when changing a database model.<br />Comments: &#42;&#42;EF Team Triage&#58;&#42;&#42; We are transitioning this project to GitHub &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#41;. As part of this transition we are bulk closing a large number of issues in order that our new issue tracker will accurately reflect the work that our team is planning to complete on the EF6.x code base.&#10;&#10;Moving forwards, our team will be fixing bugs, implementing small improvements, and accepting community contributions to the EF6.x code base. Larger feature work and innovation will happen in the EF Core code base &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework&#41;. &#42;&#42;Closing a feature request in the EF6.x project does not exclude us implementing the feature in EF Core. In fact, a number of popular feature requests for EF have already been implemented in EF Core &#40;alternate keys, batching in SaveChanges, etc.&#41;.&#42;&#42;&#10;&#10;This is a bulk message to indicate that this issue was closed and not ported to the new issue tracker. The reasons for not porting this particular issue to GitHub may include&#58;&#10; &#42; It was a bug report that does not contain sufficient information for us to be able to reproduce it &#10; &#42; It was a question, but sufficient time has passed that it&#39;s not clear that taking the time to answer it would provide value to the person who asked it &#10; &#42; It is a feature request that we are realistically not going to implement on the EF6.x code base&#10;Although this issue was not ported, you may still re-open it in the new issue tracker for our team to reconsider &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#47;issues&#41;. &#42;&#42;We will no longer be monitoring this issue tracker for comments, so please do not reply here.&#42;&#42;RoMillerThu, 08 Dec 2016 22:48:51 GMTClosed Issue: Migrations :: migrating from regular table to inheritance (TPH with abstract base or TPT) fails [1971] 20161208104851PClosed Issue: Designer: Support different inheritance patterns [510]http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/510With model code first, can&#39;t create a table per hirarchy inheritance, the dialog box just asks for base and derived class. And by default, one table per type............<br />On . Net 4.5 and visual studio 2012.<br />So go back to EF 4<br />Comments: &#42;&#42;EF Team Triage&#58;&#42;&#42; We are transitioning this project to GitHub &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#41;. As part of this transition we are bulk closing a large number of issues in order that our new issue tracker will accurately reflect the work that our team is planning to complete on the EF6.x code base.&#10;&#10;Moving forwards, our team will be fixing bugs, implementing small improvements, and accepting community contributions to the EF6.x code base. Larger feature work and innovation will happen in the EF Core code base &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework&#41;. &#42;&#42;Closing a feature request in the EF6.x project does not exclude us implementing the feature in EF Core. In fact, a number of popular feature requests for EF have already been implemented in EF Core &#40;alternate keys, batching in SaveChanges, etc.&#41;.&#42;&#42;&#10;&#10;This is a bulk message to indicate that this issue was closed and not ported to the new issue tracker. The reasons for not porting this particular issue to GitHub may include&#58;&#10; &#42; It was a bug report that does not contain sufficient information for us to be able to reproduce it &#10; &#42; It was a question, but sufficient time has passed that it&#39;s not clear that taking the time to answer it would provide value to the person who asked it &#10; &#42; It is a feature request that we are realistically not going to implement on the EF6.x code base&#10;Although this issue was not ported, you may still re-open it in the new issue tracker for our team to reconsider &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#47;issues&#41;. &#42;&#42;We will no longer be monitoring this issue tracker for comments, so please do not reply here.&#42;&#42;RoMillerThu, 08 Dec 2016 22:48:48 GMTClosed Issue: Designer: Support different inheritance patterns [510] 20161208104848PClosed Issue: Migrations: Forward slash in MigrationsDirectory causes error adding a new migration [939]http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/939This issue was copied from a public Connect issue http&#58;&#47;&#47;connect.microsoft.com&#47;VisualStudio&#47;feedback&#47;details&#47;780284&#47;entity-framework-code-first-migrations-crash<br /><br />If possible, we should accept forward slashes since the BCL components do. If this isn&#39;t feasible we should at least throw a better exception.<br /><br />Steps&#58;<br />&#42; Create a project with a context<br />&#42; Enable-Migrations<br />&#42; Set MigrationsDirectory to &#34;Test&#47;Folder&#34;<br />&#42; Add-Migration InitialCreate<br /><br />Result&#58;<br />System.Runtime.InteropServices.COMException &#40;0x80040400&#41;&#58; Unable to add &#39;201303072252051_IntialCreate.resx&#39;. A file with that name already exists.<br /><br />Server stack trace&#58; <br /> at EnvDTE.ProjectItems.AddFromFileCopy&#40;String FilePath&#41;<br /> at System.Runtime.Remoting.Messaging.StackBuilderSink._PrivateProcessMessage&#40;IntPtr md, Object&#91;&#93; args, Object server, Object&#91;&#93;&#38; outArgs&#41;<br /> at System.Runtime.Remoting.Messaging.StackBuilderSink.SyncProcessMessage&#40;IMessage msg&#41;<br /><br />Exception rethrown at &#91;0&#93;&#58; <br /> at System.Runtime.Remoting.Proxies.RealProxy.HandleReturnMessage&#40;IMessage reqMsg, IMessage retMsg&#41;<br /> at System.Runtime.Remoting.Proxies.RealProxy.PrivateInvoke&#40;MessageData&#38; msgData, Int32 type&#41;<br /> at EnvDTE.ProjectItems.AddFromFileCopy&#40;String FilePath&#41;<br /> at System.Data.Entity.Migrations.Extensions.ProjectExtensions.AddFile&#40;Project project, String path&#41;<br /> at System.Data.Entity.Migrations.Utilities.MigrationWriter.WriteResources&#40;String userCodePath, String resourcesPath, IDictionary&#96;2 resources&#41;<br /> at System.Data.Entity.Migrations.Utilities.MigrationWriter.Write&#40;ScaffoldedMigration scaffoldedMigration, Boolean rescaffolding, Boolean force, String name&#41;<br /> at System.Data.Entity.Migrations.AddMigrationCommand.WriteMigration&#40;String name, Boolean force, ScaffoldedMigration scaffoldedMigration, Boolean rescaffolding&#41;<br /> at System.Data.Entity.Migrations.AddMigrationCommand.Execute&#40;String name, Boolean force, Boolean ignoreChanges&#41;<br /> at System.Data.Entity.Migrations.AddMigrationCommand.&#60;&#62;c__DisplayClass3.&#60;.ctor&#62;b__1&#40;&#41;<br /> at System.Data.Entity.Migrations.MigrationsDomainCommand.Execute&#40;Action command&#41;<br />Unable to add &#39;201303072252051_IntialCreate.resx&#39;. A file with that name already exists.<br /><br /><br />Comments: &#42;&#42;EF Team Triage&#58;&#42;&#42; We are transitioning this project to GitHub &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#41;. As part of this transition we are bulk closing a large number of issues in order that our new issue tracker will accurately reflect the work that our team is planning to complete on the EF6.x code base.&#10;&#10;Moving forwards, our team will be fixing bugs, implementing small improvements, and accepting community contributions to the EF6.x code base. Larger feature work and innovation will happen in the EF Core code base &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework&#41;. &#42;&#42;Closing a feature request in the EF6.x project does not exclude us implementing the feature in EF Core. In fact, a number of popular feature requests for EF have already been implemented in EF Core &#40;alternate keys, batching in SaveChanges, etc.&#41;.&#42;&#42;&#10;&#10;This is a bulk message to indicate that this issue was closed and not ported to the new issue tracker. The reasons for not porting this particular issue to GitHub may include&#58;&#10; &#42; It was a bug report that does not contain sufficient information for us to be able to reproduce it &#10; &#42; It was a question, but sufficient time has passed that it&#39;s not clear that taking the time to answer it would provide value to the person who asked it &#10; &#42; It is a feature request that we are realistically not going to implement on the EF6.x code base&#10;Although this issue was not ported, you may still re-open it in the new issue tracker for our team to reconsider &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#47;issues&#41;. &#42;&#42;We will no longer be monitoring this issue tracker for comments, so please do not reply here.&#42;&#42;RoMillerThu, 08 Dec 2016 22:48:44 GMTClosed Issue: Migrations: Forward slash in MigrationsDirectory causes error adding a new migration [939] 20161208104844PClosed Unassigned: EF Tooling Update Model From Database with EF 4.0 [2603]http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/2603We&#8217;ve just hit a weird issue that has only occurred in the last few weeks&#8230;and we don&#8217;t know why&#63;&#33;<br /><br />Basically, we used to be able to right click on our entity framework model and get it to update from database&#8230;no problem.<br /><br />However, now it prompts for an entity framework version, and 4.0 is not an option&#8230;only those nuget package options are available&#8230;<br /><br />Whilst we want to update, ATM we are stuck on 4.0&#8230;<br /><br />I found this article that indicated there was a tooling update that might explain why&#47;how etc.<br /><br />http&#58;&#47;&#47;blog.3d-logic.com&#47;2013&#47;11&#47;10&#47;what-changed-in-the-ef-tooling-in-visual-studio-2013-and-visual-studio-2012-out-of-band&#47;<br /><br />But this is from ages ago, so we&#8217;re really confused why it&#8217;s only become an issue in the last few weeks&#63;&#33;<br /><br />Most are on VS 2013 Update 4&#8230;but this occurs on Update 3 as well&#8230;and we have used the tool since updating, so seems unlikely it&#8217;s the VS update&#8230;<br /><br />But basically, the only way we can now update our model from the database is using VS 2012&#33;&#63;<br /><br />I tried following the article in the links suggestion about adding a reference to System.Data.Entity &#40;v4&#41; so the tool could work out which version, but that did not help&#8230;I also set the project back from .net 4.5 to 4.0 and that did not help&#8230;we&#8217;re totally lost as to what has happened here and don&#8217;t want to be stuck using VS2012 to update the model<br />Comments: &#42;&#42;EF Team Triage&#58;&#42;&#42; We are transitioning this project to GitHub &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#41;. As part of this transition we are bulk closing a large number of issues in order that our new issue tracker will accurately reflect the work that our team is planning to complete on the EF6.x code base.&#10;&#10;Moving forwards, our team will be fixing bugs, implementing small improvements, and accepting community contributions to the EF6.x code base. Larger feature work and innovation will happen in the EF Core code base &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework&#41;. &#42;&#42;Closing a feature request in the EF6.x project does not exclude us implementing the feature in EF Core. In fact, a number of popular feature requests for EF have already been implemented in EF Core &#40;alternate keys, batching in SaveChanges, etc.&#41;.&#42;&#42;&#10;&#10;This is a bulk message to indicate that this issue was closed and not ported to the new issue tracker. The reasons for not porting this particular issue to GitHub may include&#58;&#10; &#42; It was a bug report that does not contain sufficient information for us to be able to reproduce it &#10; &#42; It was a question, but sufficient time has passed that it&#39;s not clear that taking the time to answer it would provide value to the person who asked it &#10; &#42; It is a feature request that we are realistically not going to implement on the EF6.x code base&#10;Although this issue was not ported, you may still re-open it in the new issue tracker for our team to reconsider &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#47;issues&#41;. &#42;&#42;We will no longer be monitoring this issue tracker for comments, so please do not reply here.&#42;&#42;RoMillerThu, 08 Dec 2016 22:48:40 GMTClosed Unassigned: EF Tooling Update Model From Database with EF 4.0 [2603] 20161208104840PClosed Unassigned: Entity Framework reads wrong values when working with UNION ALL / Concat and inner join [2715]http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/2715I&#39;m using Entity Framework 6.1.3 and I&#39;m getting the following an exception in case I &#96;Concat&#96; two sub queries, where the queries contain an inner join with other tables. This is the exception&#58;<br /><br />&#62; System.InvalidOperationException &#58; The specified cast from a materialized &#39;System.Int32&#39; type to the &#39;System.Boolean&#39; type is not valid.<br /><br />With its stack trace&#58;&#9;<br /><br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br />at System.Data.Entity.Core.Common.Internal.Materialization.Shaper.ErrorHandlingValueReader&#39;1.GetValue&#40;DbDataReader reader, Int32 ordinal&#41;<br />at lambda_method&#40;Closure , Shaper &#41;<br />at System.Data.Entity.Core.Common.Internal.Materialization.Coordinator&#39;1.ReadNextElement&#40;Shaper shaper&#41;<br />at System.Data.Entity.Core.Common.Internal.Materialization.Shaper&#39;1.SimpleEnumerator.MoveNext&#40;&#41;<br />at System.Data.Entity.Internal.LazyEnumerator&#39;1.MoveNext&#40;&#41;<br />at System.Linq.Enumerable.FirstOrDefault&#91;TSource&#93;&#40;IEnumerable&#39;1 source&#41;<br />at System.Data.Entity.Core.Objects.ELinq.ObjectQueryProvider.&#60;GetElementFunction&#62;b__1&#91;TResult&#93;&#40;IEnumerable&#96;1 sequence&#41;<br />at System.Data.Entity.Core.Objects.ELinq.ObjectQueryProvider.ExecuteSingle&#91;TResult&#93;&#40;IEnumerable&#39;1 query, Expression queryRoot&#41;<br />at System.Data.Entity.Core.Objects.ELinq.ObjectQueryProvider.System.Linq.IQueryProvider.Execute&#91;TResult&#93;&#40;Expression expression&#41;<br />at System.Data.Entity.Internal.Linq.DbQueryProvider.Execute&#91;TResult&#93;&#40;Expression expression&#41;<br />at System.Linq.Queryable.FirstOrDefault&#91;TSource&#93;&#40;IQueryable&#39;1 source&#41;<br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br /><br />Here is my LINQ query&#58;<br /><br />&#96;&#96;&#96; C&#35;<br />var a &#61;<br /> from asset in this.entities.Assets<br /> select new AssetInboxItem<br /> &#123;<br /> MappedToGard &#61; true,<br /> ResidualValue &#61; new Money<br /> &#123;<br /> Currency &#61; new CurrencyInfo &#123; Code &#61; asset.Currency.Code &#125;<br /> &#125;,<br /> &#125;&#59;<br /><br />var p &#61;<br /> from asset in this.entities.PreAssets<br /> select new AssetInboxItem<br /> &#123;<br /> MappedToGard &#61; false,<br /> ResidualValue &#61; new Money<br /> &#123;<br /> Currency &#61; new CurrencyInfo &#123; Code &#61; asset.CurrencyCode &#125;<br /> &#125;,<br /> &#125;&#59;<br /><br />var results &#61; a.Concat&#40;p&#41;.FirstOrDefault&#40;&#41;&#59;<br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br /><br />Here is the executed SQL query&#58;<br /><br />&#96;&#96;&#96; sql<br />SELECT TOP &#40;1&#41; <br /> &#91;c&#93;.&#91;C1&#93; AS &#91;C1&#93;, <br /> &#91;c&#93;.&#91;C2&#93; AS &#91;C2&#93;, <br /> &#91;c&#93;.&#91;C3&#93; AS &#91;C3&#93;, <br /> &#91;c&#93;.&#91;C4&#93; AS &#91;C4&#93;, <br /> &#91;c&#93;.&#91;Code&#93; AS &#91;C5&#93;<br /> FROM &#40;SELECT <br /> 1 AS &#91;C1&#93;, <br /> 1 AS &#91;C2&#93;, <br /> 1 AS &#91;C3&#93;, <br /> cast&#40;1 as bit&#41; AS &#91;C4&#93;, <br /> &#91;Extent2&#93;.&#91;Code&#93; AS &#91;Code&#93;<br /> FROM &#91;dbo&#93;.&#91;Asset&#93; AS &#91;Extent1&#93;<br /> INNER JOIN &#91;dbo&#93;.&#91;Currency&#93; AS &#91;Extent2&#93; ON &#91;Extent1&#93;.&#91;CurrencyId&#93; &#61; &#91;Extent2&#93;.&#91;Id&#93;<br /> UNION ALL<br /> SELECT <br /> 1 AS &#91;C1&#93;, <br /> 1 AS &#91;C2&#93;, <br /> 1 AS &#91;C3&#93;, <br /> cast&#40;0 as bit&#41; AS &#91;C4&#93;, <br /> &#91;Extent3&#93;.&#91;CurrencyCode&#93; AS &#91;CurrencyCode&#93;<br /> FROM &#91;dbo&#93;.&#91;PreAsset&#93; AS &#91;Extent3&#93;&#41; AS &#91;c&#93;<br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br /><br />When I change the first LINQ query to the following&#58;<br /><br />&#96;&#96;&#96; c&#35;<br />var a &#61;<br /> from asset in this.entities.Assets<br /> select new AssetInboxItem<br /> &#123;<br /> MappedToGard &#61; true,<br /> ResidualValue &#61; new Money<br /> &#123;<br /> Currency &#61; new CurrencyInfo &#123; Code &#61; &#34;EUR&#34; &#125;<br /> &#125;,<br /> &#125;&#59;<br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br /><br />I get a &#96;NullReferenceException&#96; originating from the &#96;CTreeGenerator.VisitSetOp&#96; method&#58;<br /><br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br />at System.Data.Entity.Core.Query.PlanCompiler.CTreeGenerator.VisitSetOp&#40;SetOp op, Node n, AliasGenerator alias, Func&#96;3 setOpExpressionBuilder&#41;<br />at System.Data.Entity.Core.Query.PlanCompiler.CTreeGenerator.Visit&#40;UnionAllOp op, Node n&#41;<br />at System.Data.Entity.Core.Query.InternalTrees.UnionAllOp.Accept&#91;TResultType&#93;&#40;BasicOpVisitorOfT&#96;1 v, Node n&#41;<br />at System.Data.Entity.Core.Query.InternalTrees.BasicOpVisitorOfT&#96;1.VisitNode&#40;Node n&#41;<br />at System.Data.Entity.Core.Query.PlanCompiler.CTreeGenerator.Visit&#40;ConstrainedSortOp op, Node n&#41;<br />at System.Data.Entity.Core.Query.InternalTrees.ConstrainedSortOp.Accept&#91;TResultType&#93;&#40;BasicOpVisitorOfT&#96;1 v, Node n&#41;<br />at System.Data.Entity.Core.Query.InternalTrees.BasicOpVisitorOfT&#96;1.VisitNode&#40;Node n&#41;<br />at System.Data.Entity.Core.Query.PlanCompiler.CTreeGenerator.VisitAsRelOp&#40;Node inputNode&#41;<br />at System.Data.Entity.Core.Query.PlanCompiler.CTreeGenerator.BuildProjection&#40;Node relOpNode, IEnumerable&#96;1 projectionVars&#41;<br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br /><br />If I remove the assignments to the CurrencyCode.Code property, the query is executed successfully. Here&#39;s how the working code looks like&#58;<br /><br />&#96;&#96;&#96; C&#35;<br />var a &#61;<br /> from asset in this.entities.Assets<br /> select new AssetInboxItem<br /> &#123;<br /> MappedToGard &#61; true,<br /> ResidualValue &#61; new Money<br /> &#123;<br /> Currency &#61; new CurrencyInfo &#123; &#125;<br /> &#125;,<br /> &#125;&#59;<br /><br />var p &#61;<br /> from asset in this.entities.PreAssets<br /> select new AssetInboxItem<br /> &#123;<br /> MappedToGard &#61; false,<br /> ResidualValue &#61; new Money<br /> &#123;<br /> Currency &#61; new CurrencyInfo &#123; &#125;<br /> &#125;,<br /> &#125;&#59;<br /><br />var results &#61; a.Concat&#40;p&#41;.FirstOrDefault&#40;&#41;&#59;<br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br /><br />And this is the executed SQL query&#58;<br /><br />&#96;&#96;&#96; sql<br />SELECT TOP &#40;1&#41; <br /> &#91;c&#93;.&#91;C1&#93; AS &#91;C1&#93;, <br /> &#91;c&#93;.&#91;C2&#93; AS &#91;C2&#93;, <br /> &#91;c&#93;.&#91;C3&#93; AS &#91;C3&#93;, <br /> &#91;c&#93;.&#91;C4&#93; AS &#91;C4&#93;, <br /> &#91;c&#93;.&#91;C5&#93; AS &#91;C5&#93;<br /> FROM &#40;SELECT <br /> 1 AS &#91;C1&#93;, <br /> cast&#40;1 as bit&#41; AS &#91;C2&#93;, <br /> 1 AS &#91;C3&#93;, <br /> 1 AS &#91;C4&#93;, <br /> cast&#40;1 as bit&#41; AS &#91;C5&#93;<br /> FROM &#91;dbo&#93;.&#91;Asset&#93; AS &#91;Extent1&#93;<br /> UNION ALL<br /> SELECT <br /> 1 AS &#91;C1&#93;, <br /> cast&#40;0 as bit&#41; AS &#91;C2&#93;, <br /> 1 AS &#91;C3&#93;, <br /> 1 AS &#91;C4&#93;, <br /> cast&#40;1 as bit&#41; AS &#91;C5&#93;<br /> FROM &#91;dbo&#93;.&#91;PreAsset&#93; AS &#91;Extent2&#93;&#41; AS &#91;c&#93;<br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br /><br />I think I spotted 2 bugs here. I hope you can fix this in a patch release.<br />Comments: &#42;&#42;EF Team Triage&#58;&#42;&#42; We are transitioning this project to GitHub &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#41;. As part of this transition we are bulk closing a large number of issues in order that our new issue tracker will accurately reflect the work that our team is planning to complete on the EF6.x code base.&#10;&#10;Moving forwards, our team will be fixing bugs, implementing small improvements, and accepting community contributions to the EF6.x code base. Larger feature work and innovation will happen in the EF Core code base &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework&#41;. &#42;&#42;Closing a feature request in the EF6.x project does not exclude us implementing the feature in EF Core. In fact, a number of popular feature requests for EF have already been implemented in EF Core &#40;alternate keys, batching in SaveChanges, etc.&#41;.&#42;&#42;&#10;&#10;This is a bulk message to indicate that this issue was closed and not ported to the new issue tracker. The reasons for not porting this particular issue to GitHub may include&#58;&#10; &#42; It was a bug report that does not contain sufficient information for us to be able to reproduce it &#10; &#42; It was a question, but sufficient time has passed that it&#39;s not clear that taking the time to answer it would provide value to the person who asked it &#10; &#42; It is a feature request that we are realistically not going to implement on the EF6.x code base&#10;Although this issue was not ported, you may still re-open it in the new issue tracker for our team to reconsider &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#47;issues&#41;. &#42;&#42;We will no longer be monitoring this issue tracker for comments, so please do not reply here.&#42;&#42;RoMillerThu, 08 Dec 2016 22:48:37 GMTClosed Unassigned: Entity Framework reads wrong values when working with UNION ALL / Concat and inner join [2715] 20161208104837PClosed Unassigned: SQL geography type "Not Supported" in function imports [2716]http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/2716I can use the EDM.Geography type for models in the EDMX file but if I try to import a function &#47; stored procedure with a geography field then I get &#34;Not Supported&#34; as the &#34;EDM Type&#34; when clicking the &#34;Get Column Information&#34; button.<br />Comments: &#42;&#42;EF Team Triage&#58;&#42;&#42; We are transitioning this project to GitHub &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#41;. As part of this transition we are bulk closing a large number of issues in order that our new issue tracker will accurately reflect the work that our team is planning to complete on the EF6.x code base.&#10;&#10;Moving forwards, our team will be fixing bugs, implementing small improvements, and accepting community contributions to the EF6.x code base. Larger feature work and innovation will happen in the EF Core code base &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework&#41;. &#42;&#42;Closing a feature request in the EF6.x project does not exclude us implementing the feature in EF Core. In fact, a number of popular feature requests for EF have already been implemented in EF Core &#40;alternate keys, batching in SaveChanges, etc.&#41;.&#42;&#42;&#10;&#10;This is a bulk message to indicate that this issue was closed and not ported to the new issue tracker. The reasons for not porting this particular issue to GitHub may include&#58;&#10; &#42; It was a bug report that does not contain sufficient information for us to be able to reproduce it &#10; &#42; It was a question, but sufficient time has passed that it&#39;s not clear that taking the time to answer it would provide value to the person who asked it &#10; &#42; It is a feature request that we are realistically not going to implement on the EF6.x code base&#10;Although this issue was not ported, you may still re-open it in the new issue tracker for our team to reconsider &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#47;issues&#41;. &#42;&#42;We will no longer be monitoring this issue tracker for comments, so please do not reply here.&#42;&#42;RoMillerThu, 08 Dec 2016 22:48:33 GMTClosed Unassigned: SQL geography type "Not Supported" in function imports [2716] 20161208104833PClosed Unassigned: Migration take a long time and hang - vs 2013 update 4 ? [2713]http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/2713Hi<br /><br />i try to enable Migration in my projects after update vs 2013 to update 4, but it take a long time and i must close my vs from task manager - and reopen it again for each task&#58;<br /><br />1. enable migration.<br /><br />2. add migration.<br /><br />3. update database.<br /><br />&#42;&#42; in update 3 there is no problem &#63;<br /><br />&#42;&#42; so please can anyone tell me what is the problem here &#63;<br />Comments: &#42;&#42;EF Team Triage&#58;&#42;&#42; We are transitioning this project to GitHub &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#41;. As part of this transition we are bulk closing a large number of issues in order that our new issue tracker will accurately reflect the work that our team is planning to complete on the EF6.x code base.&#10;&#10;Moving forwards, our team will be fixing bugs, implementing small improvements, and accepting community contributions to the EF6.x code base. Larger feature work and innovation will happen in the EF Core code base &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework&#41;. &#42;&#42;Closing a feature request in the EF6.x project does not exclude us implementing the feature in EF Core. In fact, a number of popular feature requests for EF have already been implemented in EF Core &#40;alternate keys, batching in SaveChanges, etc.&#41;.&#42;&#42;&#10;&#10;This is a bulk message to indicate that this issue was closed and not ported to the new issue tracker. The reasons for not porting this particular issue to GitHub may include&#58;&#10; &#42; It was a bug report that does not contain sufficient information for us to be able to reproduce it &#10; &#42; It was a question, but sufficient time has passed that it&#39;s not clear that taking the time to answer it would provide value to the person who asked it &#10; &#42; It is a feature request that we are realistically not going to implement on the EF6.x code base&#10;Although this issue was not ported, you may still re-open it in the new issue tracker for our team to reconsider &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#47;issues&#41;. &#42;&#42;We will no longer be monitoring this issue tracker for comments, so please do not reply here.&#42;&#42;RoMillerThu, 08 Dec 2016 22:48:27 GMTClosed Unassigned: Migration take a long time and hang - vs 2013 update 4 ? [2713] 20161208104827PClosed Feature: UpForGrabs: Allow using "Like" operator in LINQ [2388]http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/2388There is no way in EF to use Ms Sql &#34;Like&#34; operator, and I think its very important, &#34;Patindex&#34; and string.contains dosent not act as Like.<br />&#35;I have a table with 16,000,000 records when I use Patindex in a query it takes about 40 sec and if I replace the Patindex with Like, it take just about 1 sec to execute. I cannot use contains too, I want to use use &#34;&#37;&#34; and &#34;_&#34; in the middle of my string search pattern. <br />I have searched internet for hole one day, but no one knows how to use Like in EF, all experts recommended Patindex and contained function. I downloaded the source code of EF, I though there should a way to solve this simple problem and EF design should be very extensible but unfortunately when I looked at the source I see nothing can be changed all things are just hardcoded. <br />I found DbLikeExpression and SqlGenerator.Visit&#40;DbLikeExpression e&#41; methods, but I cannot create a derived class from SqlGenerator and override &#34;ISqlFragment Visit&#40;DbLikeExpression e&#41;&#34; method and Inject my new Sql Generator class to SqlProviderServices nor icannot add new DbExpression or override DbLikeExpression functionality. <br />I think EntityFramework.SqlServer project is an opensource project but there is no openness and extensibility in design, all class are declared as sealed or internal and there is loss usage of DI and no one can extend the functionality, at least in the way I want.<br />I should change the source code of the EF and use non standard version on my project.<br />Comments: &#42;&#42;EF Team Triage&#58;&#42;&#42; We are transitioning this project to GitHub &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#41;. As part of this transition we are bulk closing a large number of issues in order that our new issue tracker will accurately reflect the work that our team is planning to complete on the EF6.x code base.&#10;&#10;Moving forwards, our team will be fixing bugs, implementing small improvements, and accepting community contributions to the EF6.x code base. Larger feature work and innovation will happen in the EF Core code base &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework&#41;. &#42;&#42;Closing a feature request in the EF6.x project does not exclude us implementing the feature in EF Core. In fact, a number of popular feature requests for EF have already been implemented in EF Core &#40;alternate keys, batching in SaveChanges, etc.&#41;.&#42;&#42;&#10;&#10;This is a bulk message to indicate that this issue was closed and not ported to the new issue tracker. The reasons for not porting this particular issue to GitHub may include&#58;&#10; &#42; It was a bug report that does not contain sufficient information for us to be able to reproduce it &#10; &#42; It was a question, but sufficient time has passed that it&#39;s not clear that taking the time to answer it would provide value to the person who asked it &#10; &#42; It is a feature request that we are realistically not going to implement on the EF6.x code base&#10;Although this issue was not ported, you may still re-open it in the new issue tracker for our team to reconsider &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#47;issues&#41;. &#42;&#42;We will no longer be monitoring this issue tracker for comments, so please do not reply here.&#42;&#42;RoMillerThu, 08 Dec 2016 22:48:24 GMTClosed Feature: UpForGrabs: Allow using "Like" operator in LINQ [2388] 20161208104824PClosed Feature: Migrations: Ability to 'Squash' Migrations [821]http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/821After using EF Code First migrations for a while, I have reached a point where my production database is nice and stable. My code, however, has over a dozen migrations that are little more than historical relics.<br />Comments: &#42;&#42;EF Team Triage&#58;&#42;&#42; We are transitioning this project to GitHub &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#41;. As part of this transition we are bulk closing a large number of issues in order that our new issue tracker will accurately reflect the work that our team is planning to complete on the EF6.x code base.&#10;&#10;Moving forwards, our team will be fixing bugs, implementing small improvements, and accepting community contributions to the EF6.x code base. Larger feature work and innovation will happen in the EF Core code base &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework&#41;. &#42;&#42;Closing a feature request in the EF6.x project does not exclude us implementing the feature in EF Core. In fact, a number of popular feature requests for EF have already been implemented in EF Core &#40;alternate keys, batching in SaveChanges, etc.&#41;.&#42;&#42;&#10;&#10;This is a bulk message to indicate that this issue was closed and not ported to the new issue tracker. The reasons for not porting this particular issue to GitHub may include&#58;&#10; &#42; It was a bug report that does not contain sufficient information for us to be able to reproduce it &#10; &#42; It was a question, but sufficient time has passed that it&#39;s not clear that taking the time to answer it would provide value to the person who asked it &#10; &#42; It is a feature request that we are realistically not going to implement on the EF6.x code base&#10;Although this issue was not ported, you may still re-open it in the new issue tracker for our team to reconsider &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#47;issues&#41;. &#42;&#42;We will no longer be monitoring this issue tracker for comments, so please do not reply here.&#42;&#42;RoMillerThu, 08 Dec 2016 22:48:06 GMTClosed Feature: Migrations: Ability to 'Squash' Migrations [821] 20161208104806PClosed Feature: Add proper support of multiple schemas in database. [1363]http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/1363Please add proper support of multiple schema database mapping.<br /><br />The issue present itself when database have two or more schemas, with tables that have the same name.<br /><br />Example&#58;<br />Schema1.Content<br />Schema2.Content<br /><br />In this case EF designer creates objects Content and Content1.<br /><br />For time being I manually changing class names to something like SchemaName_TableName.<br /><br />Please add automatic support of multiple schema databases. It would be really great to even have classes in different namspaces for different schemas.<br /><br />Thanks<br />Eugene<br /><br />Linking a related issue&#58; https&#58;&#47;&#47;entityframework.codeplex.com&#47;workitem&#47;268<br />Comments: &#42;&#42;EF Team Triage&#58;&#42;&#42; We are transitioning this project to GitHub &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#41;. As part of this transition we are bulk closing a large number of issues in order that our new issue tracker will accurately reflect the work that our team is planning to complete on the EF6.x code base.&#10;&#10;Moving forwards, our team will be fixing bugs, implementing small improvements, and accepting community contributions to the EF6.x code base. Larger feature work and innovation will happen in the EF Core code base &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework&#41;. &#42;&#42;Closing a feature request in the EF6.x project does not exclude us implementing the feature in EF Core. In fact, a number of popular feature requests for EF have already been implemented in EF Core &#40;alternate keys, batching in SaveChanges, etc.&#41;.&#42;&#42;&#10;&#10;This is a bulk message to indicate that this issue was closed and not ported to the new issue tracker. The reasons for not porting this particular issue to GitHub may include&#58;&#10; &#42; It was a bug report that does not contain sufficient information for us to be able to reproduce it &#10; &#42; It was a question, but sufficient time has passed that it&#39;s not clear that taking the time to answer it would provide value to the person who asked it &#10; &#42; It is a feature request that we are realistically not going to implement on the EF6.x code base&#10;Although this issue was not ported, you may still re-open it in the new issue tracker for our team to reconsider &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#47;issues&#41;. &#42;&#42;We will no longer be monitoring this issue tracker for comments, so please do not reply here.&#42;&#42;RoMillerThu, 08 Dec 2016 22:48:03 GMTClosed Feature: Add proper support of multiple schemas in database. [1363] 20161208104803PClosed Issue: Multiple contexts, migrations and shared default schema [1685]http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/1685I have a multiple-contexts scenario that I assumed was a common usecase&#58; two contexts that is sharing a default namespace via the modelBuilder.HasDefaultSchema. Every table in my contexts have overridden their schemas with per-context specific schemas, thus no tables are conflicting. The only thing they will share is the CommonSchema.__MigrationHistory table.<br /><br />Now, scaffolding new migrations for both contexts work fine. <br /><br />The first time I update the database with the first context, everything is created as expected, including the CommonSchema.__MigrationHistory table.<br /><br />Next, when I try to update the database with the second context, the update operation fails with error&#58;<br />SqlException &#40;0x80131904&#41;&#58; There is already an object named &#39;__MigrationHistory&#39; in the database.<br /><br />Clearly, it doesn&#39;t &#34;see&#34; that the table is already there. My expectation was that this should just work fine, migration history for the two contexts should live happily together, separated by their ContextKey.<br /><br />__Am I missing something here or is this a bug&#63;__<br /><br />__Update&#58;__ trying out this scenario without using default schemas, thus migrations table ends up in the dbo namespace&#58; __totally works__. Which strengthen my feeling that there is a bug with shared migration history and custom default schemas.<br />Comments: &#42;&#42;EF Team Triage&#58;&#42;&#42; We are transitioning this project to GitHub &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#41;. As part of this transition we are bulk closing a large number of issues in order that our new issue tracker will accurately reflect the work that our team is planning to complete on the EF6.x code base.&#10;&#10;Moving forwards, our team will be fixing bugs, implementing small improvements, and accepting community contributions to the EF6.x code base. Larger feature work and innovation will happen in the EF Core code base &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework&#41;. &#42;&#42;Closing a feature request in the EF6.x project does not exclude us implementing the feature in EF Core. In fact, a number of popular feature requests for EF have already been implemented in EF Core &#40;alternate keys, batching in SaveChanges, etc.&#41;.&#42;&#42;&#10;&#10;This is a bulk message to indicate that this issue was closed and not ported to the new issue tracker. The reasons for not porting this particular issue to GitHub may include&#58;&#10; &#42; It was a bug report that does not contain sufficient information for us to be able to reproduce it &#10; &#42; It was a question, but sufficient time has passed that it&#39;s not clear that taking the time to answer it would provide value to the person who asked it &#10; &#42; It is a feature request that we are realistically not going to implement on the EF6.x code base&#10;Although this issue was not ported, you may still re-open it in the new issue tracker for our team to reconsider &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#47;issues&#41;. &#42;&#42;We will no longer be monitoring this issue tracker for comments, so please do not reply here.&#42;&#42;RoMillerThu, 08 Dec 2016 22:47:58 GMTClosed Issue: Multiple contexts, migrations and shared default schema [1685] 20161208104758PClosed Issue: TVFs don't work inside LINQ inline lamdas [204]http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/204&#34;this query works&#58;<br /><br />var q1 &#61; from f in ctx.COrder1<br />from t in ctx.GetFoos&#40;f.Oid&#41;<br />select new &#123; f, t &#125;&#59;<br /><br />but this doesn&#39;t&#58;<br />var q2 &#61; from f in ctx.COrder1<br />let test &#61; ctx.GetFoos&#40;f.Oid&#41;<br />from t in test<br />select new &#123; f, t &#125;&#59;<br /><br />throws Unhandled Exception&#58; System.Data.EntityCommandCompilationException&#58; An error occurred while preparing the command definition. See the inner exception for details. ---&#62; System.NotSupportedException&#58; The query attempted to call &#39;CrossApply&#39; over a nested query, but &#39;CrossApply&#39; did not have the appropriate keys.<br /> at System.Data.Query.PlanCompiler.NestPullup.ApplyOpJoinOp&#40;Op op, Node n&#41;<br /><br /> <br /><br />CQT for q1&#58;<br /><br />Project<br />&#124;_Input &#58; &#39;LQ3&#39;<br />&#124; &#124;_CrossApply<br />&#124; &#124;_Input &#58; &#39;LQ1&#39;<br />&#124; &#124; &#124;_Scan &#58; Container.COrder1<br />&#124; &#124;_Apply &#58; &#39;LQ2&#39;<br />&#124; &#124;_Store.Namespace.GetFoo&#40;Edm.Int32 id&#41;<br />&#124; &#124;_Arguments<br />&#124; &#124;_id<br />&#124; &#124;_Var&#40;LQ1&#41;.Oid<br />&#124;_Projection<br /> &#124;_NewInstance &#58; Record&#91;&#39;f&#39;&#61;FunctionV3.COrder, &#39;t&#39;&#61;Record&#91;&#39;B&#39;&#61;Edm.Int32&#93;&#93;<br /> &#124;_Column &#58; &#39;f&#39;<br /> &#124; &#124;_Var&#40;LQ3&#41;.LQ1<br /> &#124;_Column &#58; &#39;t&#39;<br /> &#124;_Var&#40;LQ3&#41;.LQ2<br /><br /> <br /><br />CQT for q2&#58;<br /><br />Project<br />&#124;_Input &#58; &#39;LQ4&#39;<br />&#124; &#124;_CrossApply<br />&#124; &#124;_Input &#58; &#39;LQ2&#39;<br />&#124; &#124; &#124;_Project<br />&#124; &#124; &#124;_Input &#58; &#39;LQ1&#39;<br />&#124; &#124; &#124; &#124;_Scan &#58; Container.COrder1<br />&#124; &#124; &#124;_Projection<br />&#124; &#124; &#124;_NewInstance &#58; Record&#91;&#39;f&#39;&#61;FunctionV3.COrder, &#39;test&#39;&#61;Collection&#123;Record&#91;&#39;B&#39;&#61;Edm.Int32&#93;&#125;&#93;<br />&#124; &#124; &#124;_Column &#58; &#39;f&#39;<br />&#124; &#124; &#124; &#124;_Var&#40;LQ1&#41;<br />&#124; &#124; &#124;_Column &#58; &#39;test&#39;<br />&#124; &#124; &#124;_Store.Namespace.GetFoo&#40;Edm.Int32 id&#41;<br />&#124; &#124; &#124;_Arguments<br />&#124; &#124; &#124;_id<br />&#124; &#124; &#124;_Var&#40;LQ1&#41;.Oid<br />&#124; &#124;_Apply &#58; &#39;LQ3&#39;<br />&#124; &#124;_Var&#40;LQ2&#41;.test<br />&#124;_Projection<br /> &#124;_NewInstance &#58; Record&#91;&#39;f&#39;&#61;FunctionV3.COrder, &#39;t&#39;&#61;Record&#91;&#39;B&#39;&#61;Edm.Int32&#93;&#93;<br /> &#124;_Column &#58; &#39;f&#39;<br /> &#124; &#124;_Var&#40;LQ4&#41;.LQ2.f<br /> &#124;_Column &#58; &#39;t&#39;<br /> &#124;_Var&#40;LQ4&#41;.LQ3&#34;&#9;<br /><br />This item was migrated from the DevDiv work item tracking system &#91;ID&#61;226867&#93;.<br /><br />Comments: &#42;&#42;EF Team Triage&#58;&#42;&#42; We are transitioning this project to GitHub &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#41;. As part of this transition we are bulk closing a large number of issues in order that our new issue tracker will accurately reflect the work that our team is planning to complete on the EF6.x code base.&#10;&#10;Moving forwards, our team will be fixing bugs, implementing small improvements, and accepting community contributions to the EF6.x code base. Larger feature work and innovation will happen in the EF Core code base &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework&#41;. &#42;&#42;Closing a feature request in the EF6.x project does not exclude us implementing the feature in EF Core. In fact, a number of popular feature requests for EF have already been implemented in EF Core &#40;alternate keys, batching in SaveChanges, etc.&#41;.&#42;&#42;&#10;&#10;This is a bulk message to indicate that this issue was closed and not ported to the new issue tracker. The reasons for not porting this particular issue to GitHub may include&#58;&#10; &#42; It was a bug report that does not contain sufficient information for us to be able to reproduce it &#10; &#42; It was a question, but sufficient time has passed that it&#39;s not clear that taking the time to answer it would provide value to the person who asked it &#10; &#42; It is a feature request that we are realistically not going to implement on the EF6.x code base&#10;Although this issue was not ported, you may still re-open it in the new issue tracker for our team to reconsider &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#47;issues&#41;. &#42;&#42;We will no longer be monitoring this issue tracker for comments, so please do not reply here.&#42;&#42;RoMillerThu, 08 Dec 2016 22:47:42 GMTClosed Issue: TVFs don't work inside LINQ inline lamdas [204] 20161208104742PClosed Feature: Default sort order for entities [1684]http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/1684I imagine the implementation follows&#58;<br /><br />Fluent API&#58;<br />modelBuilder.Entity&#60;Customer&#62;&#40;&#41;.Sorting&#40;t &#61;&#62; t.FirstName&#41;&#59;<br />modelBuilder.Entity&#60;Customer&#62;&#40;&#41;.Sorting&#40;t &#61;&#62; new &#123; t.FirstName, t.LastName &#125;&#41;&#59;<br /><br />Data Annotations&#58;<br />&#91;Sorting&#93;<br />public string FirstName &#123; get&#59; set&#59; &#125;<br /><br />or<br /><br />&#91;Sorting&#40;1&#41;&#93;<br />public string FirstName &#123; get&#59; set&#59; &#125;<br /><br />&#91;Sorting&#40;2&#41;&#93;<br />public string LastName &#123; get&#59; set&#59; &#125;<br /><br />and in EF Designer as setting for properties<br /><br />Thanks Marco<br />Comments: &#42;&#42;EF Team Triage&#58;&#42;&#42; We are transitioning this project to GitHub &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#41;. As part of this transition we are bulk closing a large number of issues in order that our new issue tracker will accurately reflect the work that our team is planning to complete on the EF6.x code base.&#10;&#10;Moving forwards, our team will be fixing bugs, implementing small improvements, and accepting community contributions to the EF6.x code base. Larger feature work and innovation will happen in the EF Core code base &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework&#41;. &#42;&#42;Closing a feature request in the EF6.x project does not exclude us implementing the feature in EF Core. In fact, a number of popular feature requests for EF have already been implemented in EF Core &#40;alternate keys, batching in SaveChanges, etc.&#41;.&#42;&#42;&#10;&#10;This is a bulk message to indicate that this issue was closed and not ported to the new issue tracker. The reasons for not porting this particular issue to GitHub may include&#58;&#10; &#42; It was a bug report that does not contain sufficient information for us to be able to reproduce it &#10; &#42; It was a question, but sufficient time has passed that it&#39;s not clear that taking the time to answer it would provide value to the person who asked it &#10; &#42; It is a feature request that we are realistically not going to implement on the EF6.x code base&#10;Although this issue was not ported, you may still re-open it in the new issue tracker for our team to reconsider &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#47;issues&#41;. &#42;&#42;We will no longer be monitoring this issue tracker for comments, so please do not reply here.&#42;&#42;RoMillerThu, 08 Dec 2016 22:47:38 GMTClosed Feature: Default sort order for entities [1684] 20161208104738PClosed Feature: Improve reverse engineer when two tables with the same name in different schemas [268]http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/268EF does not support multiple schemas in a database. All entities are created in a default namespace. This means entity name collisions could occur. Entity names are currently appended with a number to represent the next entity added to the model. This means that on systems with a large number of tables, the model must be edited by hand to properly resolve the name into an identifiable label. <br /><br />A possible mitigation would be to ensure that each entity is placed in a namespace equivalent to the schema name.<br /><br />SQL Server databases can contain multiple schemas. Each schema can have identically named table and function names. For example, ISVs are deciding to provide multi-tenant services. One mechanism is to provide a schema per customer and each schema would contain the same tables. But EF has not mechanism to enable such name clashes and provide automated name resolution. We are seeing this more and more particularly with customers planning to host their own service in the cloud but ensure they are utilizing the most cost effective measures to do so, ie. one SQL Server&#47;multi-tenant.<br /><br />Comments: &#42;&#42;EF Team Triage&#58;&#42;&#42; We are transitioning this project to GitHub &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#41;. As part of this transition we are bulk closing a large number of issues in order that our new issue tracker will accurately reflect the work that our team is planning to complete on the EF6.x code base.&#10;&#10;Moving forwards, our team will be fixing bugs, implementing small improvements, and accepting community contributions to the EF6.x code base. Larger feature work and innovation will happen in the EF Core code base &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework&#41;. &#42;&#42;Closing a feature request in the EF6.x project does not exclude us implementing the feature in EF Core. In fact, a number of popular feature requests for EF have already been implemented in EF Core &#40;alternate keys, batching in SaveChanges, etc.&#41;.&#42;&#42;&#10;&#10;This is a bulk message to indicate that this issue was closed and not ported to the new issue tracker. The reasons for not porting this particular issue to GitHub may include&#58;&#10; &#42; It was a bug report that does not contain sufficient information for us to be able to reproduce it &#10; &#42; It was a question, but sufficient time has passed that it&#39;s not clear that taking the time to answer it would provide value to the person who asked it &#10; &#42; It is a feature request that we are realistically not going to implement on the EF6.x code base&#10;Although this issue was not ported, you may still re-open it in the new issue tracker for our team to reconsider &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#47;issues&#41;. &#42;&#42;We will no longer be monitoring this issue tracker for comments, so please do not reply here.&#42;&#42;RoMillerThu, 08 Dec 2016 22:47:30 GMTClosed Feature: Improve reverse engineer when two tables with the same name in different schemas [268] 20161208104730PClosed Issue: Outer apply in query. Also the SQL query seems nicer if generated with EF5. [2413]http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/2413This has been reported by the user fsoikin as part of issue &#91;2196&#93;&#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;entityframework.codeplex.com&#47;workitem&#47;2196&#41; but seems to be caused by a different problem.<br /><br />__Model&#58;__<br /><br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br /> public class A<br /> &#123;<br /> public int Id &#123; get&#59; set&#59; &#125;<br /> public string Name &#123; get&#59; set&#59; &#125;<br /> &#125;<br /><br /> public class B<br /> &#123;<br /> public int Id &#123; get&#59; set&#59; &#125;<br /> public virtual ICollection&#60;A&#62; As &#123; get&#59; set&#59; &#125;<br /> public virtual C C &#123; get&#59; set&#59; &#125;<br /> &#125;<br /><br /> public class C<br /> &#123;<br /> public int Id &#123; get&#59; set&#59; &#125;<br /> public string X &#123; get&#59; set&#59; &#125;<br /> public int Y &#123; get&#59; set&#59; &#125;<br /> &#125;<br /><br /> public class Db &#58; DbContext<br /> &#123;<br /> public DbSet&#60;A&#62; As &#123; get&#59; set&#59; &#125;<br /> public DbSet&#60;B&#62; Bs &#123; get&#59; set&#59; &#125;<br /> public DbSet&#60;C&#62; Cs &#123; get&#59; set&#59; &#125;<br /><br /> public Db&#40;&#41; &#58; base&#40; &#34;server&#61;.&#59;database&#61;xx&#59;integrated security&#61;true&#34; &#41; &#123;&#125;<br /> &#125;<br /><br /> static class Program<br /> &#123;<br /> static void Main&#40;&#41; &#123;<br /> var db &#61; new Db&#40;&#41;&#59;<br /> var q &#61; from c in db.Bs<br /> let i &#61; c.As.FirstOrDefault&#40;&#41;.Id<br /> let j &#61; db.As.FirstOrDefault&#40; a &#61;&#62; a.Id &#61;&#61; i &#41;.Name<br /> select new &#123;<br /> c.Id,<br /> z &#61; new &#123; c.C.X, c.C.Y &#125;<br /> &#125;&#59;<br /> var qs &#61; q.ToString&#40;&#41;&#59;<br /> &#125;<br /><br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br /><br />__SQL query&#58;__<br /><br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br />SELECT<br /> &#91;Project2&#93;.&#91;Id&#93; AS &#91;Id&#93;,<br /> &#91;Extent4&#93;.&#91;X&#93; AS &#91;X&#93;,<br /> &#91;Extent5&#93;.&#91;Y&#93; AS &#91;Y&#93;<br /> FROM &#40;SELECT<br /> &#91;Extent1&#93;.&#91;Id&#93; AS &#91;Id&#93;,<br /> &#91;Extent1&#93;.&#91;C_Id&#93; AS &#91;C_Id&#93;,<br /> &#40;SELECT TOP &#40;1&#41;<br /> &#91;Extent2&#93;.&#91;Id&#93; AS &#91;Id&#93;<br /> FROM &#91;dbo&#93;.&#91;A&#93; AS &#91;Extent2&#93;<br /> WHERE &#91;Extent1&#93;.&#91;Id&#93; &#61; &#91;Extent2&#93;.&#91;B_Id&#93;&#41; AS &#91;C1&#93;<br /> FROM &#91;dbo&#93;.&#91;B&#93; AS &#91;Extent1&#93; &#41; AS &#91;Project2&#93;<br /> OUTER APPLY &#40;SELECT TOP &#40;1&#41; &#91;Extent3&#93;.&#91;Id&#93; AS &#91;Id&#93;<br /> FROM &#91;dbo&#93;.&#91;A&#93; AS &#91;Extent3&#93;<br /> WHERE &#91;Extent3&#93;.&#91;Id&#93; &#61; &#91;Project2&#93;.&#91;C1&#93; &#41; AS &#91;Limit2&#93;<br /> LEFT OUTER JOIN &#91;dbo&#93;.&#91;C&#93; AS &#91;Extent4&#93; ON &#91;Project2&#93;.&#91;C_Id&#93; &#61; &#91;Extent4&#93;.&#91;Id&#93;<br /> LEFT OUTER JOIN &#91;dbo&#93;.&#91;C&#93; AS &#91;Extent5&#93; ON &#91;Project2&#93;.&#91;C_Id&#93; &#61; &#91;Extent5&#93;.&#91;Id&#93;<br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br /><br />__Workarounds&#58;__<br /><br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br />var q &#61; from b in db.Bs<br /> let i &#61; b.As.FirstOrDefault&#40;&#41;.Id<br /> let j &#61; db.As.FirstOrDefault&#40; a &#61;&#62; a.Id &#61;&#61; i &#41;.Name<br /> join c in db.Cs on b.C.Id equals c.Id<br /> select new &#123;<br /> b.Id,<br /> z &#61; new &#123; c.X, c.Y &#125;<br /> &#125;&#59;<br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br /><br />or<br /><br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br /> var q &#61; from c in db.Bs<br /> let i &#61; c.As.FirstOrDefault&#40;&#41;.Id<br /> let j &#61; db.As.FirstOrDefault&#40;a &#61;&#62; a.Id &#61;&#61; i&#41;.Name<br /> let k &#61; c.C<br /> select new<br /> &#123;<br /> c.Id,<br /> z &#61; new &#123;k.X, k.Y&#125;<br /> &#125;&#59;<br /><br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br />Comments: &#42;&#42;EF Team Triage&#58;&#42;&#42; We are transitioning this project to GitHub &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#41;. As part of this transition we are bulk closing a large number of issues in order that our new issue tracker will accurately reflect the work that our team is planning to complete on the EF6.x code base.&#10;&#10;Moving forwards, our team will be fixing bugs, implementing small improvements, and accepting community contributions to the EF6.x code base. Larger feature work and innovation will happen in the EF Core code base &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework&#41;. &#42;&#42;Closing a feature request in the EF6.x project does not exclude us implementing the feature in EF Core. In fact, a number of popular feature requests for EF have already been implemented in EF Core &#40;alternate keys, batching in SaveChanges, etc.&#41;.&#42;&#42;&#10;&#10;This is a bulk message to indicate that this issue was closed and not ported to the new issue tracker. The reasons for not porting this particular issue to GitHub may include&#58;&#10; &#42; It was a bug report that does not contain sufficient information for us to be able to reproduce it &#10; &#42; It was a question, but sufficient time has passed that it&#39;s not clear that taking the time to answer it would provide value to the person who asked it &#10; &#42; It is a feature request that we are realistically not going to implement on the EF6.x code base&#10;Although this issue was not ported, you may still re-open it in the new issue tracker for our team to reconsider &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#47;issues&#41;. &#42;&#42;We will no longer be monitoring this issue tracker for comments, so please do not reply here.&#42;&#42;RoMillerThu, 08 Dec 2016 22:47:26 GMTClosed Issue: Outer apply in query. Also the SQL query seems nicer if generated with EF5. [2413] 20161208104726PClosed Feature: UpForGrabs: Generate model from table with "computed" column [2728]http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/2728I have table in db that contains computed column with formula&#58;<br /><br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br />&#91;AutogeneratedId&#93; AS &#40;newid&#40;&#41;&#41;<br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br /><br />When I generate model based on this table I have the following declaration &#58; <br /><br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br />&#91;DatabaseGenerated&#40;DatabaseGeneratedOption.Computed&#41;&#93;<br /> public Guid&#63; AutogeneratedId &#123; get&#59; set&#59; &#125;<br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br /><br />But I do not have anywhere information about formula that used for computed column &#61;&#62; I need to set it again when I re-create db. Is there any way to set this formula in attributes or migration script&#63; <br />Comments: &#42;&#42;EF Team Triage&#58;&#42;&#42; We are transitioning this project to GitHub &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#41;. As part of this transition we are bulk closing a large number of issues in order that our new issue tracker will accurately reflect the work that our team is planning to complete on the EF6.x code base.&#10;&#10;Moving forwards, our team will be fixing bugs, implementing small improvements, and accepting community contributions to the EF6.x code base. Larger feature work and innovation will happen in the EF Core code base &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework&#41;. &#42;&#42;Closing a feature request in the EF6.x project does not exclude us implementing the feature in EF Core. In fact, a number of popular feature requests for EF have already been implemented in EF Core &#40;alternate keys, batching in SaveChanges, etc.&#41;.&#42;&#42;&#10;&#10;This is a bulk message to indicate that this issue was closed and not ported to the new issue tracker. The reasons for not porting this particular issue to GitHub may include&#58;&#10; &#42; It was a bug report that does not contain sufficient information for us to be able to reproduce it &#10; &#42; It was a question, but sufficient time has passed that it&#39;s not clear that taking the time to answer it would provide value to the person who asked it &#10; &#42; It is a feature request that we are realistically not going to implement on the EF6.x code base&#10;Although this issue was not ported, you may still re-open it in the new issue tracker for our team to reconsider &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#47;issues&#41;. &#42;&#42;We will no longer be monitoring this issue tracker for comments, so please do not reply here.&#42;&#42;RoMillerThu, 08 Dec 2016 22:47:21 GMTClosed Feature: UpForGrabs: Generate model from table with "computed" column [2728] 20161208104721PClosed Issue: If an entity MyEntity has a property called MyProp, I cannot create an entity called MyEntity_MyProp [2727]http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/2727Copied from github&#58; https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework&#47;issues&#47;1979<br /><br />I&#39;m using Entity Framework 6, with POCO and fluent-API and I&#39;ve noticed an annoying bug.<br /><br />If I have an entity called MyEntity and this entity has a property called MyProp, that makes it impossible to create an entity called MyEntity_MyProp.<br /><br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br />The item with identity &#39;MyEntity_MyProp&#39; already exists in the metadata collection.&#92;r&#92;nParameter name&#58; item<br />&#96;&#96;&#96;<br /><br />The error immediately goes away if I rename any of the entities, or rename the properties.<br /><br />The &#34;bug&#34; is obvious&#58; the key &#91;EntityName&#93;_&#91;PropertyName&#93; must be unique in the metadata collection.<br /><br />Screenshot&#58; &#40;attached&#41;<br /><br />I&#39;m migrating a huge Entity Framework model with 390&#43; classes from EF 4, database first, to EF 6, code first, with fluent-API. It&#39;s out of question to rename the entities or the tables.<br /><br />How do I solve that&#63;<br /><br /><br />Comments: &#42;&#42;EF Team Triage&#58;&#42;&#42; We are transitioning this project to GitHub &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#41;. As part of this transition we are bulk closing a large number of issues in order that our new issue tracker will accurately reflect the work that our team is planning to complete on the EF6.x code base.&#10;&#10;Moving forwards, our team will be fixing bugs, implementing small improvements, and accepting community contributions to the EF6.x code base. Larger feature work and innovation will happen in the EF Core code base &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework&#41;. &#42;&#42;Closing a feature request in the EF6.x project does not exclude us implementing the feature in EF Core. In fact, a number of popular feature requests for EF have already been implemented in EF Core &#40;alternate keys, batching in SaveChanges, etc.&#41;.&#42;&#42;&#10;&#10;This is a bulk message to indicate that this issue was closed and not ported to the new issue tracker. The reasons for not porting this particular issue to GitHub may include&#58;&#10; &#42; It was a bug report that does not contain sufficient information for us to be able to reproduce it &#10; &#42; It was a question, but sufficient time has passed that it&#39;s not clear that taking the time to answer it would provide value to the person who asked it &#10; &#42; It is a feature request that we are realistically not going to implement on the EF6.x code base&#10;Although this issue was not ported, you may still re-open it in the new issue tracker for our team to reconsider &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#47;issues&#41;. &#42;&#42;We will no longer be monitoring this issue tracker for comments, so please do not reply here.&#42;&#42;RoMillerThu, 08 Dec 2016 22:47:16 GMTClosed Issue: If an entity MyEntity has a property called MyProp, I cannot create an entity called MyEntity_MyProp [2727] 20161208104716PClosed Task: Update Designer Extensibility Resources [1203]http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/1203We should clarify our story on extending the Entity Framework designer. Here are the few resources I was able to find online&#58;<br /><br />&#42; &#91;ADO.NET Entity Data Model Designer Extension Starter Kit &#93;&#40;http&#58;&#47;&#47;archive.msdn.microsoft.com&#47;DesignerExtStartKit&#41; -- An outdated &#40;VS 2010 RC&#41; starter kit<br />&#42; &#91;Extending the Entity Data Model Tools&#93;&#40;http&#58;&#47;&#47;msdn.microsoft.com&#47;en-us&#47;library&#47;ee373852.aspx&#41; -- Our MSDN documentation<br />&#42; &#91;Entity Framework Starter Kit alternative&#93;&#40;http&#58;&#47;&#47;www.jradley.co.uk&#47;1&#47;post&#47;2010&#47;10&#47;09&#47;Entity-Framework-Starter-Kit-alternative&#41; -- A version of the starter kit that has been updated by a community member &#40;John R&#41; to work with VS 2010 RTM &#38; 2012<br /><br />The starter kit published by Microsoft should be updated -- either to work, or to notify users that it is not up-to-date and redirect them to resources that are.<br />Comments: &#42;&#42;EF Team Triage&#58;&#42;&#42; We are transitioning this project to GitHub &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#41;. As part of this transition we are bulk closing a large number of issues in order that our new issue tracker will accurately reflect the work that our team is planning to complete on the EF6.x code base.&#10;&#10;Moving forwards, our team will be fixing bugs, implementing small improvements, and accepting community contributions to the EF6.x code base. Larger feature work and innovation will happen in the EF Core code base &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework&#41;. &#42;&#42;Closing a feature request in the EF6.x project does not exclude us implementing the feature in EF Core. In fact, a number of popular feature requests for EF have already been implemented in EF Core &#40;alternate keys, batching in SaveChanges, etc.&#41;.&#42;&#42;&#10;&#10;This is a bulk message to indicate that this issue was closed and not ported to the new issue tracker. The reasons for not porting this particular issue to GitHub may include&#58;&#10; &#42; It was a bug report that does not contain sufficient information for us to be able to reproduce it &#10; &#42; It was a question, but sufficient time has passed that it&#39;s not clear that taking the time to answer it would provide value to the person who asked it &#10; &#42; It is a feature request that we are realistically not going to implement on the EF6.x code base&#10;Although this issue was not ported, you may still re-open it in the new issue tracker for our team to reconsider &#40;https&#58;&#47;&#47;github.com&#47;aspnet&#47;EntityFramework6&#47;issues&#41;. &#42;&#42;We will no longer be monitoring this issue tracker for comments, so please do not reply here.&#42;&#42;RoMillerThu, 08 Dec 2016 22:47:13 GMTClosed Task: Update Designer Extensibility Resources [1203] 20161208104713P